Happy Christmas from GoSafe - Phibsboro!

SmartinMartin

They must really want to pass on season's greetings, because they've parked one of their vans outside McGowan 's in Phibsboro!
Bah Humbug.

Dord

Usual spot for them and today's another working day for them I guess. Would hate to be stuck in that van on Xmas day though!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Toyotafanboi

NickDunne

Hey hey careful you'll pop it!!!

SmartinMartin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Well said, Ebenezer Swanson.

Mint Sauce

You know, you could maybe, you know, might sound crazy, but maybe, drive, with in the speed limit.

Woodville56

Fred Swanson wrote: »

As good a day as any to catch law breakers.

As good a day as any to get more revenue in the coffers !

SmartinMartin

Mint Sauce wrote: »

You know, you could maybe, you know, might sound crazy, but maybe, drive, with in the speed limit.

You know, you could maybe, you know, might sound crazy, but maybe, read, the OP properly?
I didn't drive above the speed limit, nor did I say I did.
The thread was started merely to point out the imho mean spiritedness of placing a revenue gathering device on a street on Christmas morning, and also in the hope that by posting it I might save a fellow motorist from a 3-pointer for travelling 8km over the limit on the quietest traffic day of the year.
Bah Humbug indeed.

bazz26

SmartinMartin wrote: »

You know, you could maybe, you know, might sound crazy, but maybe, read, the OP properly?
I didn't drive above the speed limit, nor did I say I did.
The thread was started merely to point out the imho mean spiritedness of placing a revenue gathering device on a street on Christmas morning, and also in the hope that by posting it I might save a fellow motorist from a 3-pointer for travelling 8km over the limit on the quietest traffic day of the year.
Bah Humbug indeed.

So where do you move the line to, raise the speed limit another 10kph? Then people will want to be left off who travel "just" 8kph above that speed limit too. The best deterrent to beat these "revenue gathering machines" is don't let them catch you. All too easy to blame the camera van or speed trap. And it's on days like Christmas day that drivers need to be extra vigilant on the road, not less.

SmartinMartin

bazz26 wrote: »

So where do you move the line to, raise the speed limit another 10kph? Then people will want to be left off who travel "just" 8kph above that speed limit too. The best deterrent to beat these "revenue gathering machines" is don't let them catch you. All too easy to blame the camera van or speed trap. And it's on days like Christmas day that drivers need to be extra vigilant on the road, not less.

Another one that doesn't read the post first. Nowhere did I advocate speeding or raising the net limit. I simply pointed out what IMHO is an act smacking of meanness. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but there's no point in inventing an opinion for me.

Toyotafanboi

So you can offer your opinion but he can't reply with his?

bazz26

So your saying it's meanness and not in the spirit of Christmas for a camera van to enforce the speed limit on the road in question yesterday? So what's your saying is that they should have the day off?

SmartinMartin

Toyotafanboi wrote: »

So you can offer your opinion but he can't reply with his?

And again. From what I read, he is arguing against an opinion I didn't give. I'm certainly not disagreeing with anyone else's opinion, they're just as entitles to it as I am. I refer to my 2 given reasons for posting, nothing else. Hopefully I have been able to achieve the second. At this time is a moot point anyway, as thevan is no longer there.

SmartinMartin

bazz26 wrote: »

So your saying it's meanness and not in the spirit of Christmas for a camera van to enforce the speed limit on the road in question yesterday? So what's your saying is that they should have the day off?

Now someone gets it. Yes, to the first part (imo), and I have no opinion on the second.

markpb

Woodville56 wrote:

As good a day as any to get more revenue in the coffers !

Yeah I'm sure it made a killing yesterday. Even if every car that drive past it broke the limit, I very much doubt it even covered the running costs for the day.

uck51js9zml2yt

So they shouldn't enforce the speed limit on Christmas Day...tell that those those people killed and injured by speeders.

shietpilot

Gunnar Plain Reformer wrote: »

So they shouldn't enforce the speed limit on Christmas Day...tell that those those people killed and injured by speeders.

True but at the same time they park that GoSafe van on the wrong side of Phibsboro where all the traffic is pretty much just going straight in either direction.

50 km/h feels like a day dream there and even during heavy traffic you can do higher speeds.

GoSafe always seem to pick the spots where the speed limit is low for the condition of road/traffic which is probably why the OP is upset.

slimjimmc

shietpilot wrote: »

True but at the same time they park that GoSafe van on the wrong side of Phibsboro where all the traffic is pretty much just going straight in either direction.

50 km/h feels like a day dream there and even during heavy traffic you can do higher speeds.

GoSafe always seem to pick the spots where the speed limit is low for the condition of road/traffic which is probably why the OP is upset.

GoSafe can only patrol the zones designated by the Garda Office for Safety Camera Management (OSCAM). They are contracted to provide at least 7345 hrs of monitoring per month in a 24/7 service and they just can't pick somewhere to check at a whim, each week's roster must be approved by the Gardaí (OSCAM) in the previous week.
http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/committeetakes/TRJ2014041600003

It seems GoSafe have little to no discretion in when and where to operate.

markpb

shietpilot wrote: »

50 km/h feels like a day dream there and even during heavy traffic you can do higher speeds.

It has lots of pedestrians and cyclists. It also has people stopping to park or puking out from parking. It doesn't matter what dream you think it feels like, it's an urban street right beside the city centre - suggesting it should have a higher limit is ludicrous.

shietpilot

markpb wrote: »

It has lots of pedestrians and cyclists. It also has people stopping to park or puking out from parking. It doesn't matter what dream you think it feels like, it's an urban street right beside the city centre - suggesting it should have a higher limit is ludicrous.

Have you seen how wide that road is? The driving lanes are wider than usual, there is also dedicated parking and on top of that a bus lane!

It's an example of the safest road near the city centre. Nobody is asking for a higher speed limit. There is simply no need for speed vans there.

mattser

shietpilot wrote: »

Have you seen how wide that road is? The driving lanes are wider than usual, there is also dedicated parking and on top of that a bus lane!

It's an example of the safest road near the city centre. Nobody is asking for a higher speed limit. There is simply no need for speed vans there.

Revenue dear Watson, revenue.

power pants

SmartinMartin wrote: »

Another one that doesn't read the post first. Nowhere did I advocate speeding or raising the net limit. I simply pointed out what IMHO is an act smacking of meanness. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but there's no point in inventing an opinion for me.

any other crimes that should be waived as its xmas?

markpb

shietpilot wrote: »

Have you seen how wide that road is? The driving lanes are wider than usual, there is also dedicated parking and on top of that a bus lane!.

I know it well but I'm confused about why you equate width and a bus lane with pedestrian safety? Surely a pedestrian crossing a wide road needs cars to approach slower, not faster?

shietpilot

markpb wrote: »

I know it well but I'm confused about why you equate width and a bus lane with pedestrian safety? Surely a pedestrian crossing a wide road needs cars to approach slower, not faster?

Well if you cannot see a pedestrian then don't be on the road.

The speed limit at the junction in Phibsborough is also 50 km/h and it's a lot more dangerous doing 50 km/h through it for example yet you never see a speed van there.

Now I know maybe that place may not be on the Garda speed checking zones but my point still stands. The junction is a LOT more dangerous yet the speed limit is the same.

markpb

shietpilot wrote: »

Now I know maybe that place may not be on the Garda speed checking zones but my point still stands. The junction is a LOT more dangerous yet the speed limit is the same.

Maybe people are less likely to speed (so enforcement is less needed) at that junction because it feels less safe?

SmartinMartin

power pants wrote: »

any other crimes that should be waived as its xmas?

Crimes. Lol. Is it high-horse day or what? :pac:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Valetta

SmartinMartin wrote: »

Crimes. Lol. Is it high-horse day or what? :pac:

Breaking the speed limit isn't a crime?

If so, then I agree fully with your OP.

But then, on the other hand .....

SmartinMartin

Speeders! Hang em all, the criminals! Lol

It's a standard road traffic offence which is a misdemeanor.

SmartinMartin

power pants wrote: »

any other crimes that should be waived as its xmas?

And yet another one attributing opinions to me. I never suggested allowing people to speed. Refer to op.:)

pablo128

markpb wrote: »

It has lots of pedestrians and cyclists. It also has people stopping to park or puking out from parking. It doesn't matter what dream you think it feels like, it's an urban street right beside the city centre - suggesting it should have a higher limit is ludicrous.

It has lots of designated pedestrian crossings too.

Rubberchikken

I comletely fail to see how it's meaness to have a speed van in place on christmas day.
The law is the law regardless of the day. Emotion doesn't come into it.

Victor

SmartinMartin wrote: »

They must really want to pass on season's greetings, because they've parked one of their vans outside McGowan 's in Phibsboro!
Bah Humbug.

Adverse safety outcomes happen when you least expect or want them.

Four killed on roads since Christmas Day

Woodville56 wrote: »

As good a day as any to get more revenue in the coffers !

mattser wrote: »

Revenue dear Watson, revenue.

Just to let you know that speeding fines are a loss-making activity, just like pretty much every other part of law enforcement. The saving comes in the reduction in collisions and casualties.

http://www.finance.gov.ie/sites/default/files/Exchequer%20Statement%20end%20Dec%202014.pdf

Income from Motoring Fines €6,889,000 (this might not include court fines)
Cost of the justice system €2,013,381,000

Valetta

Rubberchikken wrote: »

I comletely fail to see how it's meaness to have a speed van in place on christmas day.
The law is the law regardless of the day. Emotion doesn't come into it.

I think a lot of people think they should be exempt from the kaw just because
It's Christmas
It's a wide road
It's dry
There's no other cars on the road
I'm a great driver
The road is straight

Immaturity and irresponsibility abounds, and we have deaths on the roads.

Do people not see the correlation?

To Elland Back

Can you imagine the carnage from the "I'm a good driver" brigade if Christmas Day was deemed to be a free for all. It would be like a scene from The Purge

Mint Sauce

SmartinMartin wrote: »

You know, you could maybe, you know, might sound crazy, but maybe, read, the OP properly?
I didn't drive above the speed limit, nor did I say I did.
The thread was started merely to point out the imho mean spiritedness of placing a revenue gathering device on a street on Christmas morning, and also in the hope that by posting it I might save a fellow motorist from a 3-pointer for travelling 8km over the limit on the quietest traffic day of the year.
Bah Humbug indeed.

Wasn't suggesting you were OP, but should Xmas day or St Stephens day be any different to another day of the year. Even for the supposedly quietest days of the year, there were 3 killed in a 24hr period up till this morning, they may have not have all been though speeding, but deaths do still occur every day of the year on our roads. I do agree some of their locations are daft, but that's for another day.

pablo128

Mint Sauce wrote: »

I do agree some of their locations are daft, but that's for another day.

I think you'll find that's the whole idea of this thread!

Jesus.

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

The sad thing is people like you actually exist

Mod note - user banned

Riesen_Meal

Jesus. wrote: »

The sad thing is people like you actually exist

Well said Jesus, happy birthday btw...

Jesus.

Valetta wrote: »

I think a lot of people think they should be exempt from the kaw

Yes, the Government and their intentions in everything are as pure as the driven snow and their lackeys are always willing to accept everything they're dose fed.

"Those Go Safe vans are there merely to keep you docile lemmings safe and are placed in their particular positions accordingly......"

My name is Jesus and I have just wept

TheChizler

Jesus. wrote: »

The sad thing is people like you actually exist

What's wrong with the statement?

Jesus.

Rubberchikken wrote: »

The law is the law regardless

God I long for the day when such simplicity's governed my life. Oh how I wish I was 9 years old once more...

markpb

pablo128 wrote: »

It has lots of designated pedestrian crossings too.

Which pedestrians are under no obligation to use. It's perfectly legal to cross almost anywhere (except close to pedestrian crossings and maybe motorways). It's the motorists responsibility to drive in such a way that allows other road users to be safe.

This thread is depressing. So far we've seen that it's silly to enforce the law on Christmas day, that the law is only ever enforced to make money and that one of the two urban speed limits is apparently too low and dream like for a road which is right beside the city centre. And then of course, the usual pictures suggesting that anyone who points out the silliness of this must be on their high horse.

Valetta

Jesus. wrote: »

Yes, the Government and their intentions in everything are as pure as the driven snow and their lackeys are always willing to accept everything they're dose fed.

"Those Go Safe vans are there merely to keep you docile lemmings safe and are placed in their particular positions accordingly......"

My name is Jesus and I have just wept

I've no idea why you quoted my post, because your reply has absolutely nothing to do with it.

power pants

SmartinMartin wrote: »

And yet another one attributing opinions to me. I never suggested allowing people to speed. Refer to op.:)

Another one that doesn't read the post first. Nowhere did I advocate speeding or raising the net limit. I simply pointed out what IMHO is an act smacking of meanness. You don't have to agree with my opinion, but there's no point in inventing an opinion for me.

That is what I replied to. What is it that "smacks of meanness"? driving within the law or speeding and being caught ?

You're not making much sense.

FWIW Im not a high horse, just thought I would see if you bit

Victor

Are you both on the same side, making the same point, but squabbling anyway?

power pants wrote: »

I simply pointed out what IMHO is an act smacking of meanness.

To suggest that a road safety action smacks of meanness, well that smacks of psychopathy and an inability to think critically.

They're not out to steal Christmas, they're there to get people to obey the speed limit.

visual

Studies in UK have proven speed cameras cause more accidents and their removal reduces accidents.
Don't see any difference here except public are swallowing hook line and sinker speed kills
Driver error is the biggest factor in accidents not speed. But that message isn't getting as much publicity.

It is very unfortunate that there has been so many serious accidents over Christmas but no amount of go safe vans would have prevented this.

power pants

Victor wrote: »

Are you both on the same side, making hte same point, but squabbling anyway?To suggest that a road safety action smacks of meanness, well that smacks of psychopathy and an inability to think critically.

They're not out to steal Christmas, they're there to get people to obey the speed limit.

I dont know. Op contradicts himself so its not clear yet if we are squabbling over the same point. Time will tell. Hopefully

Victor

visual wrote: »

Studies in UK have proven speed cameras cause more accidents and their removal reduces accidents.

Would you have anything to back that up?

visual wrote: »

accidents

They're not "accidents". Accidents suggests they are unavoidable and that there is no responsibility. Most collisions aren't accidents.

Driver error is the biggest factor in accidents not speed.

Error causes collisions. Sometimes that error is speed. Speed is a key determinant in the outcome of the collision.

It is very unfortunate that there has been so many serious accidents over Christmas but no amount of go safe vans would have prevented this.

Speed cameras are one measure, not a panacea. There would be lots of other measures if safety wasn't subverted by the motor industry and ignorant drivers.

pablo128

Victor wrote: »

Would you have anything to back that up?

Error causes collisions. Sometimes that error is speed. Speed is a key determinant in the outcome of the collision

Speed cameras are one measure, not a panacea. There would be lots of other measures if safety wasn't subverted by the motor industry and ignorant drivers.

Speed in isolation isn't a problem. The inappropriate use of speed is where the problem lies. I would be more of the opinion that it's down to driver error, which of course can and does include inappropriate use of speed.

I could have 10 pints, a few lines of coke and go and do handbrake turns on the wrong side of the road right in front of a Gosafe van. But so long as I don't go over the posted speed limit I'll be alright.

We need human beings aka gardai out patrolling if we are to change driver behaviour.